Cited by 36Innovations in Medical EducationMentoring and Academic DevelopmentReflective Practices in Education

Tensions in mentoring medical students toward self-directed and reflective learning in a longitudinal portfolio-based mentoring system – An activity theory analysis

Open access
Heeneman, Sylvia, de Grave, Willem·2017·Medical Teacher

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In medical education, students need to acquire skills to self-direct(ed) learning (SDL), to enable their development into self-directing and reflective professionals. This study addressed the mentor perspective on how processes in the mentor-student interaction influenced development of SDL. METHODS: n = 22 mentors of a graduate-entry medical school with a problem-based curriculum and longitudinal mentoring system were interviewed (n = 1 recording failed). Using activity theory (AT) as a theoretical framework, thematic analysis was applied to the interview data to identify important themes. RESULTS: Four themes emerged: centered around the role of the portfolio, guiding of students' SDL in the context of assessment procedures, mentor-role boundaries and longitudinal development of skills by both the mentor and mentee. Application of AT showed that in the interactions between themes tensions or supportive factors could emerge for activities in the mentoring process. CONCLUSION: The mentors' perspective on coaching and development of reflection and SDL of medical students yielded important insights into factors that can hinder or support students' SDL, during a longitudinal mentor-student interaction. Coaching skills of the mentor, the interaction with a portfolio and the context of a mentor community are important factors in a longitudinal mentor-student interaction that can translate to students' SDL skills.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/0142159x.2017.1286308

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 45 · Cited by 36

Authors
Heeneman, S., & de Grave, W.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • School of Health Professions Education, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands;
Corresponding author
Heeneman, Sylvia
Venue
Medical Teacher
Published
2017-02-08
Volume
39
Issue
4
Pages
368-376
ISSN
  • 0142-159X (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-187X
OpenAlex
W2587627150
Cited by
36
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5
FWCI
1.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Teacher (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mentoring and Academic Development
  • Social Sciences › Education › Reflective Practices in Education
Keywords
mentoring, medical students, self-directed learning, reflective learning, activity theory, portfolio assessment, coaching skills, graduate entry medicine, problem-based learning
MeSH terms
Mentoring, Curriculum, Humans, Learning, Longitudinal Studies, Mentors, Students, Medical, Problem-Based Learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review